Faith and Baptism

[KEPLER]

Interesting comments, or should I say, "judgments". Care to back them up with quotes? And where have I denied Covenant Theology?

"Judgments", eh? Care to look back at post #2 in this thread? (pot, meet kettle)

As for covenant theology, you sure seemed to have veered off track in that last sentence in post #42. (Or perhaps you're one of those so-called "Reformed Baptists" which of course are actually neither, but that's a different thread.) But what do I know, I'm just a heretic...

 

[frumanchu]

frumanchu seems to think that Romans 6:3-4 is NOT talking about water baptism...? Calvin certainly thought it was!

Not exactly. I was pointing out what I believed to be an errant statement by Sentry regarding water baptism vs "Spirit baptism." I think there are serious errors in Sentry's sacramentology.

I recognize water baptism as a sign and seal of covenant grace and fully affirm the view set forth in the Westminster Confession, Ch XXVIII.

 

[nobdysfool]

"Judgments", eh? Care to look back at post #2 in this thread? (pot, meet kettle)

You mean where I said Baptismal Regeneration is heresy? That is a statement of theological fact. Nothing wrong with pointing out the Truth.

As for covenant theology, you sure seemed to have veered off track in that last sentence in post #42. (Or perhaps you're one of those so-called "Reformed Baptists" which of course are actually neither, but that's a different thread.) But what do I know, I'm just a heretic...

Well, sorry I stepped on your toes. As for the last sentence in post #42, regarding our walk with Christ, is it or is it not ultimately individual? That was my point. I fail to see how that contradicts Covenant Theology, unless you have a different definition of the term than I do.

 

[Edial]

Kepler sits around watching the fireworks...

So far, the Lutherans are heretics (Kepler is sad; he is a heretic )

At least one Reformed person (nobodysfool) has denied Covenant Theology

We had a Campbellite, but he disappeared...

DepthDeception continues to live up to his name (both are obscure)


Schroeder, the little piano-playing Peanut has proven himself to be 'nuts' by denying that Christians should no longer continue the practice of Water Baptism.

frumanchu seems to think that Romans 6:3-4 is NOT talking about water baptism...? Calvin certainly thought it was!

Edial is Baptutheran, or a Lutherptist...? whatever, it makes an strange looking child.

But what to think of Sentry...??? Sentry is a conundrum. Sentry never answered this question in post #20.

I can tell you one think for sure - I'm glad I do not meet your approval.

And by the way, were you ever approached about your attitude in the light of associating yourself with Christ?

And if so, anything you would care to share about that might be considered constructive, ... in the light of Christ that is?

Ed

 

[KEPLER]

I can tell you one think for sure - I'm glad I do not meet your approval.

And by the way, were you ever approached about your attitude in the light of associating yourself with Christ?

And if so, anything you would care to share about that might be considered constructive, ... in the light of Christ that is?

Ed

Ed,

I didn't call anyone a heretic.

And I used smilies liberally.

Kepler

 

[KEPLER]

Well, sorry I stepped on your toes. As for the last sentence in post #42, regarding our walk with Christ, is it or is it not ultimately individual? That was my point. I fail to see how that contradicts Covenant Theology, unless you have a different definition of the term than I do.

My toes are fine, thanks for asking!

Your statement in post #42 was a response to Prodromos' statement that, "These (RCs, EOs, and Lutherans) make up the vast majority of christians around the world," which, while factual, is not (as you rightly point out) a logical proof for a position's validity. But then you got careless.

Ultimately, the Christian walk is personal, not corporate or vicarious, and each believer is responsible to seek out Truth, and learn from the Holy Spirit.

"Not corporate"??!!

Calvinists baptise their children precisely because Calvinists believe that their own theology is correct, n'est pas? Now, as I indicated in my post, I am presuming that you are a real Calvinist and not a so-called "Reformed Baptist." Covenant Theology, by its very nature, is communal, not individual. Now while I think all who hold Covenant Theology would agree that any indivudual adult person's destiny (heaven or hell) is a matter of that individual person's relationship to a just and Holy God, none would say that any individual's "Christian walk" (your words!) was done alone. And for many of us, that Christian walk starts at birth.

Indeed, from the moment of our birth, our parents and other members of the community of faith look out for us, do they not? They do, and that responsibility arises out of their Covenant Relationship to God and to one another: Christianity does NOT happen in a colection of lots of individual little bubbles; it happens in a family and in a community. Good Reformed theologians know that God uses means to call his elect and bring them into the family. God does not work out of thin air, as it were, to effect regeneration. Put another way, the total number of people in the entire history of the world who have been regenerated by God through a direct and unmediated "zapping" by the Holy Spirit, is (to the best of my knowledge) ONE. That was Paul on the road to Damascus, and even in that case, I suspect that actual regenration did not occur until he reached Damscus and Ananias laid hands on him. Scripture does not say explicitly. But it does clearly indicate that God uses other members of the believing community to bring about the faith of new members. This is part and parcel of Covenant Theology. Covenant Theology REQUIRES a community. Covenant Theology REQUIRES means of grace. Covenant Theology leaves no room for indivdualistic and random "zapping" of people for conversion OR sanctification. Both of these events happen "inside" the community of the Covenant. Anyone who says otherwise had better go join a Pentecostal Church.

I refer you to two parts of a lecture series delivered by a Reformed pastor (and erstwhile friend of mine)("erstwhile" only becasue we haven't spoken for over ten years, not because we had any falling out or anything) which does a good job of demonstrating the corporate nature of the Covenant (as it relates to Baptism, which is the subject of the thread). Part 1 and Part 2.

"Not vicarious"??!!

When you said that the Christian walk is not "vicarious"...well, frankly, I sure hope it is. My theology says that "ultimately" it is Christ who walked my Christian walk for me, and it was in my Baptism that God attached the benefits of His perfectly lived life to me (it's a little thing we call the imputed righteousness of Christ...ever heard of it?). And I can't know of that righteouness of Christ outside a community that is faithful to him. Covenant Theology might not express what I said in exactly the same way, but I know for a fact that it agrees more with my statement than it does yours.

"Each believer is responsible to seek out truth"??!!

Outside of the community of faith, how on earth can this happen? To a man, every Reformer attacked and dismissed asceticism as unbiblical, because it denied the necessity of community. The Heidelberg Catechism declares that the primary way God uses to apply His grace to His faithful is through the preaching of the Word (Heid. Cat. LD 25). The Belgic Confession, speaking of the duty of believers to remain in a community (a church) says there "is no salvation apart from it, no one ought to withdraw from it, content to be by himself, regardless of his status or condition" and that part of the reason for this is that believers have a duty to "build up one another, according to the gifts God has given them as members of each other in the same body." (Art 28).

Mind you, I have not attacked you because you are Reformed (I'll leave that for another post! ); I have corrected you because your statement was not a good reflection of what Reformed theology teaches; it was careless. I don't believe that you meant to do it, but you enabled someone to yank the work of the Holy Spirit out of the context of the Covenant community, and also strip Him of the means of Grace. It is precisely careless statements like yours that allow people to turn to anabaptist and pentecostal theology.

 

[Edial]

Ed,

I didn't call anyone a heretic.

And I used smilies liberally.

Kepler

The flippant attitude towards all, the disrespectful address towards the names, the judgemental dogmatics towards one's denominational affiliations are in no way diminished by a liberal amount of smileys.

Ed

 

[KEPLER]

The flippant attitude towards all, the disrespectful address towards the names, the judgemental dogmatics towards one's denominational affiliations are in no way diminished by a liberal amount of smileys.

Ed

Ed,

I will confess to one error, which was to make reference to something you said in another thread and conflate it with your posts in this thread. In this thread, you had not made the statement that you have "just become a Lutheran". Other people viewing this thread, therefore, may not have seen your posts here as being strange. Your posts in this thread reflect a standard Baptist view of baptism. It was calling yourself a Lutheran in another thread combined with your profession of Baptist doctrine here that I referred to as a strange looking child. That's a misrepresentation by omission on my part. I apologize for that.

Insofar as sharing something constructive in the light of Christ, I will offer this...

Lutherans believe, teach, and confess the following:

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1] Of Baptism they [Lutherans] teach that it is necessary 2] to salvation, and that through Baptism is offered the grace of God, and that children are to be baptized who, being offered to God through Baptism are received into God's grace. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]3] They condemn the Anabaptists, who reject the baptism of children, and say that children are saved without Baptism. [/font]

and also

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]51] The Ninth Article has been approved, in which we confess that Baptism is necessary to salvation, and that children are to be baptized, and that the baptism of children is not in vain, but is necessary and effectual to salvation. 52] And since the Gospel is taught among us purely and diligently, by God's favor we receive also from it this fruit, that in our Churches no Anabaptists have arisen [have not gained ground in our Churches], because the people have been fortified by God's Word against the wicked and seditious faction of these robbers. And as we condemn quite a number of other errors of the Anabaptists, we condemn this also, that they dispute that the baptism of little children is unprofitable. For it is very certain that the promise of salvation pertains also to little children [that the divine promises of grace and of the Holy Ghost belong not alone to the old, but also to children]. It does not, however, pertain to those who are outside of Christ's Church, where there is neither Word nor Sacraments, because the kingdom of Christ exists only with the Word and Sacraments. Therefore it is necessary to baptize little children, that the promise of salvation may be applied to them, according to Christ's command, Matt. 28, 19: Baptize all nations. Just as here salvation is offered to all, so Baptism is offered to all, to men, women, children, infants. It clearly follows, therefore, that infants are to be baptized, because with Baptism salvation [the universal grace and treasure of the Gospel] is offered. 53] Secondly, it is manifest that God approves of the baptism of little children. Therefore the Anabaptists, who condemn the baptism of little children, believe wickedly. That God, however, approves of the baptism of little children is shown by this, namely, that God gives the Holy Ghost to those thus baptized [to many who have been baptized in childhood]. For if this baptism would be in vain, the Holy Ghost would be given to none, none would be saved, and finally there would be no Church. [For there have been many holy men in the Church who have not been baptized otherwise.] This reason, even taken alone, can sufficiently establish good and godly minds against the godless and fanatical opinions of the Anabaptists.[/font]

We deny, however, that baptism works ex opere operato, that is, there is no special power in the water itself, rather it is the Word (logos) that is with the water that cleanses us:

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1] Baptism is nothing else than the Word of God in the water, commanded by His institution, or, as Paul says, a washing in the Word; as also Augustine says: Let the Word come to the element, and it becomes a Sacrament. 2] And for this reason we do not hold with Thomas and the monastic preachers [or Dominicans] who forget the Word (God's institution) and say that God has imparted to the water a spiritual power, which through the water washes away sin. 3] Nor [do we agree] with Scotus and the Barefooted monks [Minorites or Franciscan monks], who teach that, by the assistance of the divine will, Baptism washes away sins, and that this ablution occurs only through the will of God, and by no means through the Word or water. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]4] Of the baptism of children we hold that children ought to be baptized. For they belong to the promised redemption made through Christ, and the Church should administer it [Baptism and the announcement of that promise] to them. [/font]

Lutheran theology explicitly connects the Baptism of the Holy Spirit with Water Baptism, because it is the Holy Spirit that is working in water baptism. It is not a magical or mechanical operation. In fact, it's not even something that we do.

Lutherans do not see Baptism as OUR work. Baptism is GOD's work:

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]35] But if they say, as they are accustomed: Still Baptism is itself a work, and you say works are of no avail for salvation; what, then, becomes of faith? Answer: Yes, our works, indeed, avail nothing for salvation; Baptism, however, is not our work, but God's (for, as was stated, you must put Christ-baptism far away from a bath-keeper's baptism). God's works, however, are saving and necessary for salvation, and do not exclude, but demand, faith; for without faith they could not be apprehended. 36] For by suffering the water to be poured upon you, you have not yet received Baptism in such a manner that it benefits you anything; but it becomes beneficial to you if you have yourself baptized with the thought that this is according to God's command and ordinance, and besides in God's name, in order that you may receive in the water the promised salvation. Now, this the fist cannot do, nor the body; but the heart must believe it. [/font] [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]37] Thus you see plainly that there is here no work done by us, but a treasure which He gives us, and which faith apprehends; just as the Lord Jesus Christ upon the cross is not a work, but a treasure comprehended in the Word, and offered to us and received by faith. Therefore they do us violence by exclaiming against us as though we preach against faith; while we alone insist upon it as being of such necessity that without it nothing can be received nor enjoyed.[/font]

God can work any way he chooses to work. If he wants to heal people using a snake on a stick, he can do that, because...well,...because He's God. If He wants to appear as a burning bush, pillar of cloud, etc etc etc. I'm pretty sure I've presented these reasons to you before.

Who are we to say to God, "You can't work through water!"?

Once we understand that baptism is NOT something that we do, that rather, it is something God does to us, verses like Acts 2:38 straighten themselves out.

 

[Edial]

Ed,

I will confess to one error, which was to make reference to something you said in another thread and conflate it with your posts in this thread. In this thread, you had not made the statement that you have "just become a Lutheran". Other people viewing this thread, therefore, may not have seen your posts here as being strange. Your posts in this thread reflect a standard Baptist view of baptism. It was calling yourself a Lutheran in another thread combined with your profession of Baptist doctrine here that I referred to as a strange looking child. That's a misrepresentation by omission on my part. I apologize for that.

No problem. Done with.

Insofar as sharing something constructive in the light of Christ, I will offer this...

Lutherans believe, teach, and confess the following:

clipped..

We deny, however, that baptism works ex opere operato, that is, there is no special power in the water itself, rather it is the Word (logos) that is with the water that cleanses us:


Lutheran theology explicitly connects the Baptism of the Holy Spirit with Water Baptism, because it is the Holy Spirit that is working in water baptism. It is not a magical or mechanical operation. In fact, it's not even something that we do.

Lutherans do not see Baptism as OUR work. Baptism is GOD's work:

God can work any way he chooses to work. If he wants to heal people using a snake on a stick, he can do that, because...well,...because He's God. If He wants to appear as a burning bush, pillar of cloud, etc etc etc. I'm pretty sure I've presented these reasons to you before.

Who are we to say to God, "You can't work through water!"?

Once we understand that baptism is NOT something that we do, that rather, it is something God does to us, verses like Acts 2:38 straighten themselves out.

I agree.

One must define "salvation".

By salvation I mean justification before God as in the case of Abraham.

Infant Baptism depends on the request of his parents, so God would bless the child, give him grace. And God will honor the request of his parents as per the Baptism of Moses when the infants also were baptised (into Moses) while crossing the parted sea. He will grace the child.

But that grace does not mean salvation, since the boy might will grow up and deny God and forego that grace that he had when he was baptised.

When the child dies and was baptised it is looked at that he will go to heaven, since the grace of God (during infant baptism) remained on him.

I do not have aproblem with that statement, since I cannot disprove it Scripturally.

I they are wrong, they will answer to God for that teaching. But I do not have a problem with it.

The child had grace of God in/on him when his parents baptised him - no problem. Agreed.
The child refuses God whe he grows up and looses that grace - no problem. Agreed.
The child receives Christ by faith alone when is grown up - he is justified. And no one can un-justify him.

If some call that grace of God on a child salvation - no problem, since salvation has a variety of meaning in the Scriptures.

BUT, if one calls a child "justified" in the eyes of God because of an act of infant baptism - problem.

But I did not hear anyone say that.

Did this answer the question, at least partially?

Thanks,
Ed

 

[KEPLER]

I agree.

One must define "salvation".

By salvation I mean justification before God as in the case of Abraham.

Infant Baptism depends on the request of his parents, so God would bless the child, give him grace. And God will honor the request of his parents as per the Baptism of Moses when the infants also were baptised (into Moses) while crossing the parted sea. He will grace the child.

I sense some hesitation here on you part...Am I misreading that?

Let me dive in, feet first, full throttle, cold turkey (and every other metaphor I can mix in): when an infant is baptised (with water and in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, this is what Lutherans believe happens:

God

1) forgives its sins (Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16)
2) washes it clean (Eph 5:25-6; Titus 3:5)
3) buries it with Christ (Rom 6:3-4)
4) clears its conscience (1 Pet 3:21; Heb 10:22-3)
5) gives it the Holy Spirit (Acts 19:1-7; 1 Cor 6:11)
​

In short, in its baptism, God saves the child.

But that grace does not mean salvation, since the boy might will grow up and deny God and forego that grace that he had when he was baptised.

Sadly, yes. Some children who are baptized leave the faith. Lutherans do not hold to the idea of "once saved, always saved." (We also, for the record, don't hold to any ideas about "backsliding" or "carnal Christians" ala Lewis Sperry Chafer.) Grace isn't something you "trip" out of; to get out of God's hand requires blatant rejection of the Gospel (unbelief).

When the child dies and was baptised it is looked at that he will go to heaven, since the grace of God (during infant baptism) remained on him.

I do not have aproblem with that statement, since I cannot disprove it Scripturally.

I they are wrong, they will answer to God for that teaching. But I do not have a problem with it.

Which "they" are you referring to? I'm kinda lost here.

The child had grace of God in/on him when his parents baptised him - no problem. Agreed.
The child refuses God whe he grows up and looses that grace - no problem. Agreed.
The child receives Christ by faith alone when is grown up - he is justified. And no one can un-justify him.

If some call that grace of God on a child salvation - no problem, since salvation has a variety of meaning in the Scriptures.

BUT, if one calls a child "justified" in the eyes of God because of an act of infant baptism - problem.

But I did not hear anyone say that.

According to Lutheran doctrine, the child is justified in the eyes of God. Not because of an act (see? that's putting it back into our hands!), but because "God justifies the wicked." To put it in Aristotleian terms, God's Grace is the sufficient cause of Justification. Baptism is a material cause.

Question: are you attending an ELCA congregation, LCMS, WELS, or other? This is definitely something to discuss with your pastor (especially if you are in an LCMS or WELS church!)

As a member of a "Confessing" congregation (LCMS & WELS), when you stand in the Sanctuary as a child is baptized, and you read along with the rest of the congregation and make the responses with the rest of the congregation, you are making an explicit, categorical declaration (a confession!) that you AGREE with what the rest of the Congregation believes is going on in that event! That is what Lutherans mean when we say, "We Believe, Teach, and Confess".

 

[frumanchu]

I sense some hesitation here on you part...Am I misreading that?

Let me dive in, feet first, full throttle, cold turkey (and every other metaphor I can mix in): when an infant is baptised (with water and in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, this is what Lutherans believe happens:



God

1) forgives its sins (Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16)

2) washes it clean (Eph 5:25-6; Titus 3:5)
3) buries it with Christ (Rom 6:3-4)
4) clears its conscience (1 Pet 3:21; Heb 10:22-3)
5) gives it the Holy Spirit (Acts 19:1-7; 1 Cor 6:11)

​

In short, in its baptism, God saves the child.

Baptismal Regeneration. Thank you for clearly stating the doctrine. I don't agree with you on this doctrine, but it's certainly much easier to discuss the disagreement when your position is explicit

I do find it curious though that this appears to be at odds with the doctrine of sola fide.

Sadly, yes. Some children who are baptized leave the faith. Lutherans do not hold to the idea of "once saved, always saved." (We also, for the record, don't hold to any ideas about "backsliding" or "carnal Christians" ala Lewis Sperry Chafer.) Grace isn't something you "trip" out of; to get out of God's hand requires blatant rejection of the Gospel (unbelief).

What is the Lutheran response to the Scriptures speaking of God preserving believers in their faith, keeping them from stumbling, etc?

According to Lutheran doctrine, the child is justified in the eyes of God. Not because of an act (see? that's putting it back into our hands!), but because "God justifies the wicked." To put it in Aristotleian terms, God's Grace is the sufficient cause of Justification. Baptism is a material cause.

Actually, properly stated, Lutheran doctrine holds that baptism is the instrumental cause. The material cause is the righteousness of Christ imputed to the individual.

As a member of a "Confessing" congregation (LCMS & WELS), when you stand in the Sanctuary as a child is baptized, and you read along with the rest of the congregation and make the responses with the rest of the congregation, you are making an explicit, categorical declaration (a confession!) that you AGREE with what the rest of the Congregation believes is going on in that event! That is what Lutherans mean when we say, "We Believe, Teach, and Confess".

Ahhh...if only more churches were covenantal churches...

 

[KEPLER]

Baptismal Regeneration. Thank you for clearly stating the doctrine. I don't agree with you on this doctrine, but it's certainly much easier to discuss the disagreement when your position is explicit

I do find it curious though that this appears to be at odds with the doctrine of sola fide.

Really? How so?

What is the Lutheran response to the Scriptures speaking of God preserving believers in their faith, keeping them from stumbling, etc?

He does and He will. This is the backside of election. God has an elect people. Those who are saved are saved by the Grace of God alone. Period. Those who perish do so of their own free will, because they rejected the genuine offer of Grace from God (IOW, there is no such thing as election to perdition).

Lutherans do not and have never tried to reconcile the question of why some believe WHILE others do not:

12. On the basis of these clear statements of the Holy Scriptures we reject every kind of synergism, that is, the doctrine that conversion is wrought not by the grace and power of God alone, but in part also by the co-operation of man himself, by man's right conduct, his right attitude, his right self-determination, his lesser guilt or less evil conduct as compared with others, his refraining from willful resistance, or anything else whereby man's conversion and salvation is taken out of the gracious hands of God and made to depend on what man does or leaves undone. For this refraining from willful resistance or from any kind of resistance is also solely a work of grace, which "changes unwilling into willing men," Ezek. 36:26; Phil. 2:13. We reject also the doctrine that man is able to decide for conversion through "powers imparted by grace," since this doctrine presupposes that before conversion man still possesses spiritual powers by which he can make the right use of such "powers imparted by grace."

13. On the other hand, we reject also the Calvinistic perversion of the doctrine of conversion, that is, the doctrine that God does not desire to convert and save all hearers of the Word, but only a portion of them. Many hearers of the Word indeed remain unconverted and are not saved, not because God does not earnestly desire their conversion and salvation, but solely because they stubbornly resist the gracious operation of the Holy Ghost, as Scripture teaches, Acts 7:51; Matt. 23:37; Acts 13:46.

14. As to the question why not all men are converted and saved, seeing that God's grace is universal and all men are equally and utterly corrupt, we confess that we cannot answer it. From Scripture we know only this: A man owes his conversion and salvation, not to any lesser guilt or better conduct on his part, but solely to the grace of God. But any man's non-conversion is due to himself alone; it is the result of his obstinate resistance against the converting operation of the Holy Ghost. Hos. 13:9.

As for assurance,

40. Christians can and should be assured of their eternal election. This is evident from the fact that Scripture addresses them as the chosen ones and comforts them with their election, Eph. 1:4; 2 Thess. 2:13. This assurance of one's personal election, however, springs only from faith in the Gospel, from the assurance that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world; on the contrary, through the life, suffering, and death of His Son He fully reconciled the whole world of sinners unto Himself. Faith in this truth leaves no room for the fear that God might still harbor thoughts of wrath and damnation concerning us. Scripture inculcates that in Rom. 8:32, 33: "He that spared not His own Son, but gave Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth." Luther's pastoral advice is therefore in accord with Scripture: "Gaze upon the wounds of Christ and the blood shed for you; there predestination will shine forth." (St. Louis ed., II, 181; on Gen. 26:9) That the Christian obtains the personal assurance of his eternal election in this way is taught also by our Lutheran Confessions (Formula of Concord, Triglot, p. 1071, Paragraph 26, M. 709): "Of this we should not judge according to our reason nor according to the Law or from any external appearance. Neither should we attempt to investigate the secret, concealed abyss of divine predestination, but should give heed to the revealed will of God. For He has made known unto us the mystery of His will and made it manifest through Christ that it might be preached, Eph. 1:9ff.; 2 Tim. 1:9f." -- In order to insure the proper method of viewing eternal election and the Christian's assurance of it, the Lutheran Confessions set forth at length the principle that election is not to be considered "in a bare manner (nude), as though God only held a muster, thus: `This one shall be saved, that one shall be damned"' (Formula of Concord, Triglot, p. 1065, Paragraph 9; M., p. 706); but "the Scriptures teach this doctrine in no other way than to direct us thereby to the Word, Eph. 1:13; 1 Cor. 1:7; exhort to repentance, 2 Tim. 3:16; urge to godliness, Eph. 1:14; John 15:3; strengthen faith and assure us of our salvation, Eph. 1:13; John 10:27f.; 2 Thess. 2:13f." (Formula of Concord, Triglot, p. 1067, Paragraph 12; M., p. 707). -- To sum up, just as God in time draws the Christian unto Himself through the Gospel, so He has already in His eternal election endowed them with "sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth," 2 Thess. 2:13. Therefore: If, by the grace of God, you believe in the Gospel of the forgiveness of your sins for Christ's sake, you are to be certain that you also belong to the number of God's elect, even as Scripture, 2 Thess. 2:13, addresses the believing Thessalonians as the chosen of God and gives thanks to God for their election.

It all boils down to Law and Gospel.

Actually, properly stated, Lutheran doctrine holds that baptism is the instrumental cause. The material cause is the righteousness of Christ imputed to the individual.

Good point; I stand corrected.

Ahhh...if only more churches were covenantal churches...

 

[Edial]

I sense some hesitation here on you part...Am I misreading that?

Let me dive in, feet first, full throttle, cold turkey (and every other metaphor I can mix in): when an infant is baptised (with water and in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, this is what Lutherans believe happens:



God

1) forgives its sins (Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16)

2) washes it clean (Eph 5:25-6; Titus 3:5)
3) buries it with Christ (Rom 6:3-4)
4) clears its conscience (1 Pet 3:21; Heb 10:22-3)
5) gives it the Holy Spirit (Acts 19:1-7; 1 Cor 6:11)

​

In short, in its baptism, God saves the child.

This cannot be, at least in 4), since the child's conscience is most probably clear. Unless you are saying they feel a guilt of sin, that is.

You just took a bunch of verses concerning baptism and applied it to an irresponsible baby as if they apply.

Sadly, yes. Some children who are baptized leave the faith. Lutherans do not hold to the idea of "once saved, always saved." (We also, for the record, don't hold to any ideas about "backsliding" or "carnal Christians" ala Lewis Sperry Chafer.)

Of course they do not, because they do not see saved (in the infant) as justified by God. And no one that I know of ever said that anyone can un-justify what God justified.
It is by faith, through grace.

Grace isn't something you "trip" out of; to get out of God's hand requires blatant rejection of the Gospel (unbelief).

You cannot mean that.
Are you saying that is a baby is baptised and then grows up in a Chinese farm without hearing the gospel the baby goes to heaven?
What if he embraced Buddhism and is quite fluent in it? And in all this he never "blatantly rejected the Gospel".

Which "they" are you referring to? I'm kinda lost here.

By "they" I refer to people that teach that if the baby dies baptised it automatically goes to heaven, the Lutheran hierarchy.
I do not disagree with that, since I cannot disprove it Scripturally.
But if they (the teachers) are wrong about that teaching, they will be responsible to God concerning it.

According to Lutheran doctrine, the child is justified in the eyes of God. Not because of an act (see? that's putting it back into our hands!), but because "God justifies the wicked."

Justified? And then when the child rejects God he gets "un-justified" by God?

Justifiied is a strong word.

To put it in Aristotleian terms, ...

But Aristotle was a pagan.
What does he know about things of God?

... God's Grace is the sufficient cause of Justification. Baptism is a material cause.

I understand that.
I would have insisted that a man cannot "make" God do things, such as save.
And baptising someone in water and claiming that the infant is justified forever IS making God do things.

But since you yourself are saying that a child can "lose" salvation, it was not then a "salvation" in a context of justification of God, which is impossible to "lose".

No problem.

... Question: are you attending an ELCA congregation, LCMS, WELS, or other? This is definitely something to discuss with your pastor (especially if you are in an LCMS or WELS church!)

I discussed it with the Pastor.
My final question was: "Pastor, if you baptise a baby and then he grows up to be an adult and puts his faith in Jesus Christ and then realises that he wants to be baptised as an adult, would you baptise him again as an adult?"
He thought for a little while and said: "Yes".

... As a member of a "Confessing" congregation (LCMS & WELS), when you stand in the Sanctuary as a child is baptized, and you read along with the rest of the congregation and make the responses with the rest of the congregation, you are making an explicit, categorical declaration (a confession!) that you AGREE with what the rest of the Congregation believes is going on in that event! That is what Lutherans mean when we say, "We Believe, Teach, and Confess".

I never witnessed a baptism of a baby in a Lutheran Church while being a member.

But if ANYONE would ask ME whether the child would be going to heaven if died right after the baptism, they would hear a resounding: "I do not know".

Thanks,
Ed

 

[nobdysfool]

My toes are fine, thanks for asking!

Your statement in post #42 was a response to Prodromos' statement that, "These (RCs, EOs, and Lutherans) make up the vast majority of christians around the world," which, while factual, is not (as you rightly point out) a logical proof for a position's validity. But then you got careless.



"Not corporate"??!!

Calvinists baptise their children precisely because Calvinists believe that their own theology is correct, n'est pas? Now, as I indicated in my post, I am presuming that you are a real Calvinist and not a so-called "Reformed Baptist." Covenant Theology, by its very nature, is communal, not individual. Now while I think all who hold Covenant Theology would agree that any indivudual adult person's destiny (heaven or hell) is a matter of that individual person's relationship to a just and Holy God, none would say that any individual's "Christian walk" (your words!) was done alone. And for many of us, that Christian walk starts at birth.

Indeed, from the moment of our birth, our parents and other members of the community of faith look out for us, do they not? They do, and that responsibility arises out of their Covenant Relationship to God and to one another: Christianity does NOT happen in a colection of lots of individual little bubbles; it happens in a family and in a community. Good Reformed theologians know that God uses means to call his elect and bring them into the family. God does not work out of thin air, as it were, to effect regeneration. Put another way, the total number of people in the entire history of the world who have been regenerated by God through a direct and unmediated "zapping" by the Holy Spirit, is (to the best of my knowledge) ONE. That was Paul on the road to Damascus, and even in that case, I suspect that actual regenration did not occur until he reached Damscus and Ananias laid hands on him. Scripture does not say explicitly. But it does clearly indicate that God uses other members of the believing community to bring about the faith of new members. This is part and parcel of Covenant Theology. Covenant Theology REQUIRES a community. Covenant Theology REQUIRES means of grace. Covenant Theology leaves no room for indivdualistic and random "zapping" of people for conversion OR sanctification. Both of these events happen "inside" the community of the Covenant. Anyone who says otherwise had better go join a Pentecostal Church.

I refer you to two parts of a lecture series delivered by a Reformed pastor (and erstwhile friend of mine)("erstwhile" only becasue we haven't spoken for over ten years, not because we had any falling out or anything) which does a good job of demonstrating the corporate nature of the Covenant (as it relates to Baptism, which is the subject of the thread). Part 1 and Part 2.

"Not vicarious"??!!

When you said that the Christian walk is not "vicarious"...well, frankly, I sure hope it is. My theology says that "ultimately" it is Christ who walked my Christian walk for me, and it was in my Baptism that God attached the benefits of His perfectly lived life to me (it's a little thing we call the imputed righteousness of Christ...ever heard of it?). And I can't know of that righteouness of Christ outside a community that is faithful to him. Covenant Theology might not express what I said in exactly the same way, but I know for a fact that it agrees more with my statement than it does yours.

"Each believer is responsible to seek out truth"??!!

Outside of the community of faith, how on earth can this happen? To a man, every Reformer attacked and dismissed asceticism as unbiblical, because it denied the necessity of community. The Heidelberg Catechism declares that the primary way God uses to apply His grace to His faithful is through the preaching of the Word (Heid. Cat. LD 25). The Belgic Confession, speaking of the duty of believers to remain in a community (a church) says there "is no salvation apart from it, no one ought to withdraw from it, content to be by himself, regardless of his status or condition" and that part of the reason for this is that believers have a duty to "build up one another, according to the gifts God has given them as members of each other in the same body." (Art 28).

Mind you, I have not attacked you because you are Reformed (I'll leave that for another post! ); I have corrected you because your statement was not a good reflection of what Reformed theology teaches; it was careless. I don't believe that you meant to do it, but you enabled someone to yank the work of the Holy Spirit out of the context of the Covenant community, and also strip Him of the means of Grace. It is precisely careless statements like yours that allow people to turn to anabaptist and pentecostal theology.

I think you missed the point of what I was saying. My point was that we individually must deal with Christ, on a personal level, and cannot be a "Christian by association". It's like the old saying, "God has no grandchildren". You are not a Christian just because your Dad was one. And you can't be a Christian without participation, which was the thrust of my "vicarious" remark (which might be interpreted as a small dig at RC's)

You read far too much into what I was saying. I appreciate your explaining what you thought you saw in my words, but I assure you, that was not what I was saying. Much of what you say I agree with.

 

[Schroeder]

Kepler sits around watching the fireworks...

So far, the Lutherans are heretics (Kepler is sad; he is a heretic

At least one Reformed person (nobodysfool) has denied Covenant Theology

We had a Campbellite, but he disappeared...

DepthDeception continues to live up to his name (both are obscure)


Schroeder, the little piano-playing Peanut has proven himself to be 'nuts' by suggesting that Christians should no longer continue the practice of Water Baptism.

frumanchu seems to think that Romans 6:3-4 is NOT talking about water baptism...? Calvin certainly thought it was!

Edial is Baptutheran, or a Lutherptist...? whatever, it makes an strange looking child.

But what to think of Sentry...??? Sentry is a conundrum. Sentry never answered this question in post #20.

nice. mine i thought was pretty funny, a little sarcastic but funny. your strong christian ethics and humility and caring just shout at us in this post. i didnt think sarcasim was a gift of the Spirit. but i did like my being a peanut and a nut. that was clever. i have not said i think it should be done away with. it is you suggesting i am suggesting such a thing. i have been water baptized. i think it should be taught correctly. that it was never commanded by Christ. he does not make commands and not exp[lain why. no passages are given to explain the use of it or how it is to be done or when ect. Why not if it is such a important aspect in our faith. it as caused much devision in the Church that it is hard to think theat God would say to do such a thing and not make it clear as the correct method and use of it so as not to cause a problem within the Church.

 

[stabalizer]

I always have understood baptism, (water) as calling on the name of the Lord.

Baptized (immersed) into His death and raised in newness of life.

In actuallity when you come up out of the water haven't you asked Him to put His name on you.? the old man being dead and your old name!

Can't regeneration, (spirit baptism) come at the same time or if later, does it matter.?

From faith to faith.

Isn't faith a combination of believing and then appropriating an action in response to a promise of God?

 

[Schroeder]

I always have understood baptism, (water) as calling on the name of the Lord.

the use of "in the name of the lord" was used to signify a association with the person named in scripture being Christ and or through the person as in its use in healing. so as is taught by most it is used to associate yourself with Christ as agreeing to what he has taught. 1 cor 1 shows this idea and why Paul becomes angry at those who were argueing over the idea of who baptized them and not who the person was they doing it for Christ.

Baptized (immersed) into His death and raised in newness of life.

no scripture explains or says it is water that does this. BUt scripture says in John 3:6 that the SPirit gives us the SPirit, which would in turn join us in to Christ who is in the SPirit, as 1 cor 12:13 says.

In actuallity when you come up out of the water haven't you asked Him to put His name on you.? the old man being dead and your old name!

actually it is the SPirit that changes the concience of us to live a new life hence, to be born again. read heb. 9-10

Can't regeneration, (spirit baptism) come at the same time or if later, does it matter.?

acording to Peter they received the Spirit baptism when they believed Acts 11:17 read Acts 15:8 God saw there hearts and saw it truelly believed and he gave them the Spirit. so regeneration is always only when we receive the Spirit of Christ, because without it we could never obey or understand what GOd desires in us 1 cor 2(i believe)

From faith to faith.

Isn't faith a combination of believing and then appropriating an action in response to a promise of God?

faith after salvation never before because scripture says without the Spirit there is no pleasing God.

 

[stabalizer]

Can somebody have true saving faith and be saved without being baptized?

My response is ; yes

Are you speaking only about water baptism? Or Spirit baptism? or both?

I say yes because of this scripture;

1John 5:16" If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death."

My take is this a prayer that's completely intercessory, a stand in the gap prayer.

 

[stabalizer]

the use of "in the name of the lord" was used to signify a association with the person named in scripture being Christ and or through the person as in its use in healing. so as is taught by most it is used to associate yourself with Christ as agreeing to what he has taught. 1 cor 1 shows this idea and why Paul becomes angry at those who were argueing over the idea of who baptized them and not who the person was they doing it for Christ.

no scripture explains or says it is water that does this. BUt scripture says in John 3:6 that the SPirit gives us the SPirit, which would in turn join us in to Christ who is in the SPirit, as 1 cor 12:13 says.

NOt so; You might want to read Acts 10;44-48

Both are commanded; (John 3:5)

actually it is the SPirit that changes the concience of us to live a new life hence, to be born again. read heb. 9-10
acording to Peter they received the Spirit baptism when they believed Acts 11:17 read Acts 15:8 God saw there hearts and saw it truelly believed and he gave them the Spirit. so regeneration is always only when we receive the Spirit of Christ, because without it we could never obey or understand what GOd desires in us 1 cor 2(i believe)

faith after salvation never before because scripture says without the Spirit there is no pleasing God.

Absolutly not! No faith and youe become convicted.?

no faith and you can repent?

 

[Schroeder]

Absolutly not! No faith and youe become convicted.?

no faith and you can repent?

Faith in what is the question. you have Faith in the gospel message being taught to you. God works in you to convict you, that is why it says God draws you near. it is not our doing but Gods through his Spirit working on our conscience. Yes no Faith in God but Faith in that what is spoke to you of Christ is true, BUT we could not even have this Faith if it was not for Gods Spirit working in us at the time it is being told to us. once we believe and GOd sees it is TRUE in our hearts, we will have a FAITH in God that what he promised through Christ, OUR inheretance, will be given us. There is a Faith before salvation and after, but they are different. Scripture makes it clear in 1 cor 2 that we can not please God with out the Spirit in us, we dont get the Spirit untill we believe in his Son, so the Faith before salvation must be something else. it is Faith in the message of Christ through the working of God on our conscience. Jn 3:5 speaks of the Spirit and natural birth not water baptism. read verse 8, it says that is of those born of the SPIRIT, NOT of both. Acts 10 says clearly that forgiveness is by belief in verse 43. There is no command to water baptize. why would God ask for something of us when he says Christ fullfilled the reguirements of the Law. and that in Rom 5 he said Chtrist did the one act of obediance and righteousness already. to say such things and then say we must do a one act makes no since does it?